Reply With Quote
This is very reassuring news. I'm not sure when the story came out, but I just caught it earlier today. Wish it got a little more coverage.
I understand that they are s and resort to the dirtiest tactics available, including complete disregard for international law. At the very heart of this debate is really a philosophical question: Do you play dirty too, and cheat on one of the pillars of the democracy (justice), or do you uphold the law, and deal with the consequences, whatever those might be.
It's a much trickier question that it seems, because there are many alternatives (ie: You could declare them POW, then not follow the conventions rights).
Perhaps this needs it's own thread.
This is very reassuring news. I'm not sure when the story came out, but I just caught it earlier today. Wish it got a little more coverage.
But...But......
But I STILL HEART GITMO!!!!!!!!!!
/yonivore
you ing
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal appeals court ruled Monday that a Chinese Muslim held by the U.S. military was improperly labeled an "enemy combatant" by the Pentagon.
It's the first time a Guantanamo Bay detainee has been given an opportunity in a civilian court to try to secure his release.
The decision throws into serious doubt the underlying reasons for keeping Hazaifa Parhat in custody for more than six years.
A brief one-page order from the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington directed military officials to either "release or transfer Parhat, or to expeditiously hold a new [military] tribunal."
The order came just 11 days after the Supreme Court ruled the approximately 270 detainees at Guantanamo have a basic cons utional right to challenge their detention in federal courts -- another setback for the Bush administration's anti-terror and war policies.
The justices moved quickly Monday to give federal judges further authority to hear an expected flood of appeals from accused terrorists and foreign fighters being held at the Guantanamo base in Cuba.
In a brief order of its own, the high court refused to get involved in a pending appeal from several detainees. That frees up federal judges in Washington to begin setting schedules to hear the cases. The chief judge at the U.S. District Court met with detainee lawyers last week and plans to meet with his fellow judges in the near future to discuss logistical and strategic questions.
Lawyers for the men have urged the federal courts to speed up the process, saying postponing a resolution "would once again, freeze judicial review of cases in which that review is years overdue... The human cost of further delay is simply too great."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia last July concluded the U.S. military could not limit what information the courts hear when foreign detainees are challenging their imprisonment.
The government had argued national security concerns gave them the discretion to decide what do ents were pertinent for judicial review. Lawyers for the Justice Department also claimed the lower court decision would "impose extraordinary compliance burdens."
About 180 detainees have appealed their continued imprisonment and complain the government is unfairly restricting access to potential evidence that could clear them of wrongdoing -- evidence the men may not even know exists.
Hearings known as combatant status review tribunals determine whether a prisoner can be designated an "enemy combatant," and prosecuted by the military. Some legal and military analysts have likened them to civilian grand jury proceedings.
A federal law passed in 2006, the Detainee Treatment Act, restricts the ability of accused enemy combatants to challenge tribunal procedures and findings before the D.C. Circuit federal appeals court.
The legal issues surrounding the foreign nationals held in U.S. custody have taken on greater urgency in recent months. Many of the men are into their seventh year of detention, and several have already had pretrial hearings before the military tribunal.
The latest appeals involve eight detainees, including Parhat and Afghani Haji Bismullah.
Parhat, a Muslim of ethnic Uighur descent, is accused of attending a terror training camp in Afghanistan at the time of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Bismullah, 29, is accused of fighting with the Taliban against the United States and its Afghan allies. He is awaiting a ruling on whether his enemy combatant status was improper.
In a separate ruling, the federal appeals court in Washington refused Monday to intervene in the ongoing military prosecution of a Canadian national, who had sought immediate federal court oversight over his detention and upcoming trial.
Omar Khadr was formally charged in April 2007 with killing Sgt. Christopher James Speer, a U.S. soldier whose reconnaissance patrol was ambushed in Afghanistan in 2002. The American died nearly two weeks later. Khadr was 14 or 15 years old at the time and remains one of the youngest Guantanamo prisoners.
The three-judge federal panel in their latest ruling said it was premature to intervene with the military's criminal proceedings, but said it reserved the right to review the case later "to determine whether the [military] commission properly determined its jurisdiction and acted in conformity with the law."
The Supreme Court on three occasions since 2004 has limited the government's power to detain and prosecute foreign nationals held at Guantanamo.
The government has promised to comply with the justices' latest ruling, but President Bush said he would still consider proposing further congressional legislation limiting the power of federal courts to oversee appeals from enemy combatants.
LINK
Did you know the Chinese government cals the Uyghur nationalists terrorists?
Are we letting the Chinese Government dictate our national security policies now? I guess we should throw the Dalai Lama into a Gitmo cell while we're at it.
The Chinese government calls anybody wanting democracy a terrorist also.
What's your point?
Let me guess, the judge is some liberal political hippie. It couldn't possibly be that there's no evidence against this guy.
I thought they had really good evidence?????
I mean, they kept the dude jailed for *SIX* years!!!
Did you know the United States government classified Nelson Mandela as a terrorist?
Oh, but U.S. government never makes mistakes...U.S. has Mandela on terrorist list
By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Nobel Peace Prize winner and international symbol of freedom Nelson Mandela is flagged on U.S. terrorist watch lists and needs special permission to visit the USA. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls the situation "embarrassing," and some members of Congress vow to fix it.
The requirement applies to former South African leader Mandela and other members of South Africa's governing African National Congress (ANC), the once-banned anti-Apartheid organization. In the 1970s and '80s, the ANC was officially designated a terrorist group by the country's ruling white minority. Other countries, including the United States, followed suit.
Because of this, Rice told a Senate committee recently, her department has to issue waivers for ANC members to travel to the USA.
"This is a country with which we now have excellent relations, South Africa, but it's frankly a rather embarrassing matter that I still have to waive in my own counterpart, the foreign minister of South Africa, not to mention the great leader Nelson Mandela," Rice said.
Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., chairman of the House International Relations Committee, is pushing a bill that would remove current and former ANC leaders from the watch lists. Supporters hope to get it passed before Mandela's 90th birthday July 18.
"What an indignity," Berman said. "The ANC set an important example: It successfully made the change from armed struggle to peace. We should celebrate the transformation."
In 1990, Mandela was freed after 27 years in prison for crimes committed during the struggle against Apartheid, a repressive regime that subjugated black South Africans. In 1994, he was elected South Africa's first black president.
Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., called ANC members' inclusion on watch lists a "bureaucratic snafu" and pledged to fix the problem.
Members of other groups deemed a terrorist threat, such as Hamas, also are on the watch lists.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says "common sense" suggests Mandela should be removed. He says the issue "raises a troubling and difficult debate about what groups are considered terrorists and which are not."
When ANC members apply for visas to the USA, they are flagged for questioning and need a waiver to be allowed in the country. In 2002, former ANC chairman Tokyo Sexwale was denied a visa. In 2007, Barbara Masekela, South Africa's ambassador to the United States from 2002 to 2006, was denied a visa to visit her ailing cousin and didn't get a waiver until after the cousin had died, Berman's legislation says.
He isn't one. I didn't know that. What did they call those burning tires around peoples neck?Did you know the United States government classified Nelson Mandela as a terrorist?
I agree that this is not always true because of the way the Chinese treat people. Still, the USA also considers the group Parhat beloongs to as a terrorist organization. Not just because the Chinese say so. It should be asked, what was he doing in the training camp. Maybe he is no threat to us, maybe we should turn him over to the Chinese. What do you think they would do to him if they assume as I do that he was learning terrorist tactics against he Chinese govenment?
Should we give him asylum because he tells us he was there to harm the Chinese government?
Who would take him in?
I find it ironic that the article didn't say what he was doing there, or did I miss it? Shouldn't the reported at least tell us why he is improperly detained? There are those who can easily claim otherwise.
Also, don't forget that this is a war on terrorism. Not just against USA terrorism.
As more and more come out about this case, I think we have the right man detained. Consider this:
U.S. defends detention of Chinese Muslim
US Defends Detention of Chinese Muslim
That they detained him in Afghanistan doesn't mean he was in any training camp. I mean, where's the evidence of that, other than the government claiming he was? Also, where is the evidence of ties with Al-Qaida?
What's next? We put the Dalai Lama in Guantanamo? You know, if he didn't hate the United States before this, sure as heck does now.
And did you read the second article you posted? Let me highlight some of the goodies there:
The case hinges on Parhat's connection to the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, a militant group that demands separation from China. The United States named it a terrorist groups in 2002, a move that some international affairs analysts say was made to appease China and ensure it would not oppose the invasion of Iraq.
"Lots of people go on China's terrorism list. Just ask the Dalai Lama," attorney P. Sabin Willett told the court. "Congress never authorized war against this group."
The military says Parhat trained in an ETIM camp to prepare to fight against China. The Chinese government blames the separatist group for hundreds of attacks, while human rights groups say Beijing represses religious freedom and uses anti-terrorism laws to crack down on legitimate protests.
Justice Department attorney Gregory G. Katsas told a three-judge panel that the U.S. has classified intelligence that ETIM is affiliated with al-Qaida, though officials did not identify the source of that intelligence either to the judges or to the military reviewers. China has made similar claims but has offered no evidence.
The U.S. acknowledges it has no evidence that Parhat joined that group. His "affiliation" alone, the military said, justified his detention as an enemy combatant. Judge Thomas B. Griffith questioned that logic. He said the law explicitly says there must be a connection to the Sept. 11 attacks.
"The Chinese government blames the separatist group for hundreds of attacks"
Does it look like we are detaining those just for religious freedom?
Again, this group is on the USA terrorist list. Not just China's. As a member, do we really need any other cause?
'The United States named it a terrorist groups in 2002, a move that some international affairs analysts say was made to appease China and ensure it would not oppose the invasion of Iraq'
What else do you need to know?
Freaking Nelson Mandela is on the US terrorist list.
BTW, the US already got rid of some of these guys in '06, again, from the article you linked to:
Judge Merrick B. Garland suggested Friday that the Bush administration could resolve the same way it did in 2006, when, faced with a court order that some Uighurs were being held illegally, it arranged for five detainees to be sent to Albania.
Last edited by ElNono; 06-23-2008 at 09:00 PM.
"Some international affairs analysts" is less than 50%, and could be a punditry point of view. It is also possible the 2002 timeframe is coincidental rather than due to 9/11.
To extrapolate naming them as terrorists to appease the Chinese? That doesn't make sense to me.
Bottom line is we will believe what we want without all the evidence. Unless you can persuade me he had no ties with the Taliban, I will believe those who say he did. For several reasons. No sense in bringing them up because they are individually weak arguments. There are quite a few though.
If you wish to convince me we have the wrong man, then what was his reason for being where he was. He was at least in the wrong place at the wrong time. Did he have friend or family there? Why was he there rather than a less tyrannical place for him to practice his religious freedom unless his religious freedom included killing the infidel?
But doesn't that go against Obama's plan of bombing Bin Laden in Pakistan? Doesn't Bin Laden deserve Habeas Corpus before we go bombing him to smithereens?
Let's not forget that the detainees aren't citizens. Now we're one step closer to providing Habeas Corpus to illegal aliens or any intruders into our country, as now the argument is made that those who aren't Americans are en led to the same rights that Americans are. And who gets to pay for all this?
Thank you, liberal bags. How did this country ever survive a few hundred years without you?
And to think the socialist countries in Europe are starting to move closer to the right. Turns out the Utopian paradise is a wet dream. Who'd a thunk it?
Oh, wait...
The government doesn't even have evidence the guy is a member of the group!!!
The guy is basically a terrorist by proxy. Amazing.
These guys are such a threat, we flew 5 of them out of the country and drpped them in Europe. I mean, we haven't even heard his reasoning for being in Afghanistan (being in a country is not a crime,BTW), but you already concluded he was professing to kill the infidels. Talk about jumping the gun.
What we did find out today, however, is that under existing law, this guy cannot possibly be an 'enemy combatant', meaning he's been illegally detained for six years. And BTW, I don't need to convince you of anything. I told you we were going to find cases like this. Even if we end up finding out that 95% of the imprisoned are actually rightfully detained, this is a whole lot more transparent than the completely arbitrary system we had in place. I somehow think this is not the last case of unsubstantiated detention we'll hear about.
If he were taken prisoner, yes. Then if he wants to challenge his detention, he'll be brought before a judge who'll ask what evidence there is to charge him, in which case the prosecution will pop in a vhs from the pile of OBL's greatest hits. Hearing over, back to your cell.
Habeas Corpus doesn't "help" terrorists or give them "extra rights" or free cable in their cell, it helps the wrongly accused to publicly establish their iden y, so they aren't lost in a dark hole the rest of their lives because of some ty 3rd-hand hearsay that passes for "evidence".
We don't throw illegal aliens into Gitmo cells and throw away the key; we deport them. There is no detention to challenge.Let's not forget that the detainees aren't citizens. Now we're one step closer to providing Habeas Corpus to illegal aliens or any intruders into our country, as now the argument is made that those who aren't Americans are en led to the same rights that Americans are. And who gets to pay for all this?
Thank you, liberal bags. How did this country ever survive a few hundred years without you?
...and thank you, conservative ogres for making the United States look like liars and hypocrites to the rest of the world when we talk about freedom, justice, human rights, democracy, etc. How could we win over hearts and minds without you?
I'm sure you can find a country whose laws can be easily bent in order to satisfy your xenophobia.Let's not forget that the detainees aren't citizens. Now we're one step closer to providing Habeas Corpus to illegal aliens or any intruders into our country, as now the argument is made that those who aren't Americans are en led to the same rights that Americans are. And who gets to pay for all this?
Thank you, liberal bags. How did this country ever survive a few hundred years without you?
And to think the socialist countries in Europe are starting to move closer to the right. Turns out the Utopian paradise is a wet dream. Who'd a thunk it?
Oh, wait...
In this country, we respect the Cons ution. If you don't like it, you can always move to Europe.
And FWIW, the conservatives had complete control of Congress and the White House for years, yet completely failed to pass any immigration reform. So I guess is not just the liberals after all.
I was stating this opens a door. If you don't think there are ACLU lawyers ready to jump on all this, then.... I dunno, I guess you don't know much about ACLU lawyers.
I thought we did that when we (Clinton) ignored the genocide in Rwanda.
Lookee! An interesting perspective on Clinton and the genocide from a "person of color"!
http://www.black-collegian.com/extra...wanda405.shtml
Yeah, preach on with the human rights BS.
Liberalism doesn't work anywhere in the world, It's been proven time and again. We can use our very own United States of America as an example.
Look at the safest cities in the United States. A very large majority of them are run by conservative Republicans due to the majority Republican voting demographic. The most dangerous? A large majority are run by liberal Democrats. Coincidence? No. States with poor air and water quality. Again, largely Democrat, Cleaner states are red states.
Why in the would I need to move anywhere? There are plenty of places in this country that liberals haven't infested with their slime where the quality of living is above standard. I'm living in one.
If you don't understand the difference between being locked up in a cell and being deported, then...I dunno, I guess you don't understand anything at all.
I'm sure you were among the throngs of conservatives who at the time were angered at Clinton's refusal to intervene in Rwanda...oh, wait...
Again, tell it to the ACLU lawyers. I'm saying there is a difference, I'm also stating that it won't be long before civil rights attorneys state that there isn't one. You don't seem to be grasping that at all.
Maybe if I was a "conservative", I would be.
Can you back up your claims with any info, links, anything?
Actually don't bother, I just checked the most polluted cities in America ranking and California has 3 in the top 10. And BTW, you might be shocked to hear this, but the Cons ution applies in Idaho too.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
